Turning down $75 million

Via Greg Djerejian and Matthew Yglesias the Washington Post reported that Iranian Democracy advocates are calling for a cut in funding support form the U.S.

The U.S. program, launched in 2006, backfired in its first year, undermining democracy efforts in Iran and leading to wider repression against activists as foreign agents or traitors, the groups said. Among those detained were four Iranian Americans, all charged with "crimes against national security" linked to the U.S. program. A second year of funding will further endanger democracy efforts, the groups added.

"Iranian reformers believe democracy cannot be imported and must be based on indigenous institutions and values. Intended beneficiaries of the funding -- human rights advocates, civil society activists and others -- uniformly denounce the program," according to an open letter organized by the National Iranian American Council, the American Conservative Defense Alliance and the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. The letter was signed by 23 other liberal and conservative pro-democracy groups.

I would certainly listen to the Iranian democracy advocates here. I’m not sure we should abandon direct democracy aid (rather than more generally focused human rights promoting aid). I think such an approach has worked to a degree in post-cold war Eastern Europe, but I think that’s probably because regimes there didn’t have as free a hand to crush opposition. But even when it can work, publicly tying aid to democracy promoters to militant regime change talk is going to be counter productive.

Comments

[Don Vandervelde - - -]

Appeasing the "Death to America" mullahs, is the road to war and suffering, as now in Iran, and later to drag the US in. Opposition on all levels is the only choice the mullahs have left us, and will be the safest route for the Iranians and the Americans. We should lend support to a government-in-exile of democratic dissidents to take charge when the mullahs fall, until real elections can be held.

[Greg Sanders]

The democratic dissidents in question are saying that they believe that an active U.S. effort is counter-productive. Moreover, expat dissidents, while often possessing great credentials, are inherently limited in terms of the in-country network they can call on. This is part of why the intelligence we were getting on Iraq proved so poor.

[Moti]

I think here, encouraging private donations is probably better than official aid; if you can say that the US government is behind something, then that's like an automatic negative in that region for a program at the moment. If the people doing the work say it's making their jobs harder, then there's no real reason to force it upon them, right?